The state petitions for reconsideration of our previous decision. 76 Or App 231, 708 P2d 1190 (1985). 1 We held that the trial court’s failure to give the jury a written or electronically recorded copy of the jury instructions for its use during deliberation did not satisfy ORCP 59B 2 and was reversible error. We also held that the trial court’s informing the jury that it could request to have the recorded instructions played back in the courtroom during its deliberation did not satisfy the rule and that the mandatory language of ORCP 59B required strict compliance.

In its petition, the state, for the first time, points out that ORCP 59C(5) requires only that the jury “be kept together in some convenient place” when it retires for deliberation. We agree with the state’s contention that the courtroom may be a “convenient place.” Reassembling the jury in the courtroom to rehear the instructions can be part of the deliberation process. By making the recorded instructions available to the jury in the courtroom during its deliberation, the trial court did comply with ORCP 59B. We grant the petition for reconsideration, withdraw our former opinion and affirm defendant’s conviction.

Petition for reconsideration granted; former opinion withdrawn; judgment of conviction affirmed.